Leader of the Opposition's minimising tone in respect of the importance of consulting the comfort of Members in any new rules of procedure, and said that he might make his mind easy as to any danger of an enhancement by those rules of the powers of the Executive at the expense of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. As to Home Rule, Mr. Balfour said that for some years past he had observed a certain shyness on the part of the front Opposition bench in regard to that question. The declaration now made by Sir H. CampbellBannerman, Mr. Balfour said, "is an interesting and an important announcement made, I presume, after due deliberation and after consultation with all the various sections of that party which the right hon. gentleman is privileged to lead. As such it will be received with the utmost attention and interest in the country, and I am glad to think-or sorry to think, perhaps I should say that my own previsions as to the position of the Home Rule question are not erroneous, and that it is absolutely impossible for right hon. gentlemen opposite, whether they desire it or whether they do not desire it, to escape from that damnosa hereditas which has been left them by the unfortunate events of 1885."

With reference to a complaint by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman of the meagre character of the information supplied from South Africa, Mr. Balfour observed that burdened with work as Lord Kitchener and his staff already were, it would not be right to transform them into a supplementary news agency merely in order to satisfy a legitimate curiosity. After remarking that on some topics to which the right hon. gentleman had referred considerable light was thrown by a Blue-book which had just been published, he stated that the Cape Ministers were responsible for the fact that the Cape Parliament had not met. Of their action his Majesty's Ministers, of course, thoroughly approved. The Constitution had been suspended by the Governor on the advice of the Cape Ministers. With regard to the administration of martial law, information would shortly be supplied. As to farm-burning, it was not given up in those cases in which it was considered to be a military necessity. There were circumstances which rendered it expedient and right to resort to farm-burning, and he trusted that our generals would not shrink from that course when circumstances necessitated it. In South Africa unfortunately military events sank into insignificance, from the point of view of the Boers, as compared with the public utterances of the leader of the Opposition and other gentlemen. The Boers hoped that if a change of Government should take place they would retain their independence. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had said that the Boers ought not to be subjugated, but, as they were not prepared to surrender their independence and we were equally determined that they should surrender it, Mr. Balfour maintained that they must be conquered and subjugated.

Mr. W. Redmond (Clare, E.) and other Irish members attacked the administration of Irish affairs as involving the suppression of the rights of free speech and the exhibition of rancour and barbarity" on the part of the Chief Secretary, and questions were asked and answered (by Lord Cranborne) about the Persian Gulf. These subjects will be better noticed in connection with the amendments to the Address moved relating to them. Reference must, however, be made to an elaborate and vehement speech in which Sir W. Harcourt (Monmouthshire, W.) contended that the suspension of Parliamentary rights at the Cape was a violation of the statute law and grossly unconstitutional. It was monstrous, he maintained, to assert, as the Government did, that temporary Ministers of the Crown had the power to suspend the Constitution through a Governor. If the Constitution had to be suspended it ought only to have been done with the assent of the Cape Parliament itself or by the Imperial Parliament. He discussed, with much reference to legal authorities, the question of the administration of martial law at the Cape, maintaining that such law ought never to be enforced except where it was impossible to enforce the ordinary civil law. It was not in the competence of a Constitutional Executive to destroy the liberties of a community without the authority of Parliament. Where civil courts were sitting, as they were at the Cape, the Executive, Sir W. Harcourt maintained, had no right to summon defendants before military courts. Martial law, exercised under the sole authority of the Executive, was justifiable only in great emergencies. If it was thought that martial law ought to be administered generally throughout the Cape the consent of Parliament ought to be obtained.

Mr. Chamberlain (Birmingham, W.), Colonial Secretary, recognised that the questions raised by Sir W. Harcourt were of immense importance, for they involved the relations of the United Kingdom with its Colonies and closely concerned the powers of our self-governing Colonies. But the attack of the right hon. gentleman ought, he thought, to have been followed by an amendment upon which the sense of the House could have been taken. The postponement of the meeting of Parliament at the Cape and the establishment of martial law were decided on by the Ministers of the Colony themselves. They had technically, no doubt, committed illegal and unconstitutional acts, and at the proper time they would ask their Parliament for an Act of Indemnity. This was a matter to be considered from a common-sense point of view, and Sir W. Harcourt's lore would not avail him much. As the House knew, the Government approved what the Cape Ministers had done. It was ridiculous, therefore, to ask the Government to veto their decisions. Martial law was, of course, the abrogation of the ordinary law and the substitution of an arbitrary law; but it was justifiable in emergencies. In Africa we were dealing with

war and even rebellion, and the universal practice in such emergencies was to abrogate the ordinary law. He held that it would be the height of folly to abandon the power which martial law conferred upon us or to call the Cape Parliament together at the present moment, as that would cause confusion and encourage the enemies of the country.

On January 17, several Members having made inquiry with regard to the assurances" that no offence was intended, said by Count von Bülow, in his speech in the Reichstag, to have been received by him in relation to Mr. Chamberlain's Edinburgh speech, Mr. Balfour replied as follows:-"No assurances have been officially asked for on the subject. There were no charges of barbarity made by my right hon. friend against the German or any other army, as is suggested in the question of the hon. and learned gentleman the member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill). In an unofficial conversation this fact was pointed out by Lord Lansdowne to the German Ambassador. Nothing, in the opinion of the Government, requires to be said in the direction of either qualifying or withdrawing the speech of my right hon. friend."

This identification of the Government as a whole with the position of Mr. Chamberlain vis-à-vis the German Chancellor was loudly applauded in the House of Commons, and produced cordial satisfaction in the country at large. There ensued discussions of two domestic amendments to the Address. The first, moved by Dr. Macnamara (Camberwell, N.), urged that immediate parliamentary attention was required to the question of the lack of proper housing accommodation for the working classes. The mover maintained that the measures touching the housing question passed by the King's Ministers had proved abortive, and he urged them to introduce a bill permitting municipalities to extend the period for the repayment of loans incurred in carrying out rehousing schemes, and to treat the land which had to be acquired, for a period of years, as a permanent, undiminishing asset. A new Cheap Trains Act was also needed.

Captain Norton (Newington, W.), who seconded the amendment, advocated, among other changes, the taxation of groundrents, and urged the appointment of a Royal Commission.

Mr. Chaplin (Sleaford, Lincs.) denied that the legislation passed when he was a member of the Government had been a failure. On the contrary, schemes for the rehousing of the people were initiated under that legislation almost as soon as it came into force-for example, the purchase by the London County Council of 250 acres at Tottenham, outside its area, with a view to the housing of 40,000 people. He adhered to the opinion-which he held when he was in office that the arguments in favour of extending the time for the repayment of loans were greatly outweighed by the objections to that proposal. What ought to be done was to stimulate local

[JAN. authorities to make more effective use of the powers which they possessed.

Mr. Caine (Camborne, Cornwall) endorsed the views of the mover and seconder of the amendment, and Sir A. Rollit (Islington, S.) also favoured an extension of the time for the repayment of loans. Mr. Price (Norfolk, E.) insisted that the conditions under which the working classes were housed in the rural districts were in many places unsatisfactory, and pointed out that if steps were taken to provide labourers with good accommodation they would be more likely to stay upon the land. Sir J. Dickson-Poynder (Chippenham, Wilts), while he recognised that it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to introduce any large scheme dealing with the housing question this session, hoped they might find it possible to pass a small measure for the amendment of the existing acts. asked the Government to appoint a committee to consider various points which required investigation, including the question of the great expense incurred in clearing slums. The substantial compensation now payable to owners of insanitary areas certainly called for attention.

He

Mr. Long (Bristol, S.), President of the Local Government Board, expressed the conviction that the housing problem could only be solved satisfactorily by removing people from the centre to the outskirts of towns, and he trusted that in future means would be found to facilitate transit at cheap rates. As to the prices paid for insanitary areas, where a property became insanitary through the gross neglect of the owner, he ought clearly to receive no more than the actual value of the land. A great deal of property, however, became insanitary through no fault of the owner. He was willing that the whole question of the term for repayment of loans, as to which conflicting opinions had been expressed by committees on private bills and the House itself, should now be referred for reconsideration to a special committee, which would also deal with the question as to whether land acquired ought to be treated as a permanent asset. Sir W. Foster (Ilkeston, Derbyshire) supported the amendment, and Mr. Duke (Plymouth), from the Ministerial benches, urged that the Local Government Board was in the habit of insisting, in the case of houses to be built by local authorities for the working classes, upon conditions much more rigid than those prescribed by building bye-laws to which the same authorities had obtained the sanction of the Board. On a division, taken during the dinner-hour, the amendment was only rejected by 153 votes to 123.

The next amendment expressed regret at the absence from the King's Speech of any reference to questions specially affecting the interests of the people of Wales, and in view of the failure of Parliament during six years to consider those interests, declared that it was "desirable that there should be conferred upon the Principality a large extension of powers of local self

government." The mover, Mr. Lewis (Flint Boroughs), maintained that the right of Wales to separate legislation had been established by such measures as the Welsh Intermediate Education and Sunday Closing Acts, but having been thus acknowledged, it had, without justification, been year after year neglected. He and other speakers also complained of the unreasonable and costly delays to which Welsh private bill legislation was exposed. The precise nature of the desired extension of local government did not come out very clearly in the speeches of the various Welsh Liberal members who supported the resolution, but separatist aspirations were strongly disclaimed on their behalf by Mr. Herbert Roberts (Denbighshire, W.) and Mr. Humphreys-Owen (Montgomery). Mr. Long, who replied for the Government, contended that the speeches which had been delivered failed to show that Wales suffered under any special grievance. It had been argued that a scheme of devolution for private bill business, like that which was working with such satisfactory results in Scotland, ought to be introduced for Wales. He was in favour of devolution of this kind, but he saw no reason for extending the system to Wales before it was extended to other localities in the United Kingdom. To the devolution of certain business from the Government departments to the County Councils there was no objection in principle, but there were practical difficulties in the way which could not be easily surmounted. Mr. Long expressed himself as ready to consider whether the devolution of some of the work of his own department was practicable, and undertook to receive a deputation with whom to discuss the question. But he could not entertain any proposals for the separate treatment of England and Wales; nor, of course, could the present Government countenance separate legislation for Wales on the land question. One of the complaints that had been made was that amendments to the Welsh Sunday Closing Act were necessary, but could not be made owing to the press of business in Parliament. This he met by reminding the House that the Government were about to introduce a bill dealing with the drink question, which would apply to Wales as well as to England. The amendment was negatived, but only by 164 votes to 117.

On January 20, in the Commons, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs made an interesting statement in regard to the part played by Great Britain, as between the Continental Powers on the one hand and the United States on the other, before the outbreak of the Spanish-American war. Replying to Mr. Norman (Wolverhampton, S.), Lord Cranborne said that immediately before the war several communications were received from other Powers suggesting the presentation of a joint note to the President of the United States, and her late Majesty's Government agreed to join with other Powers in a note expressing a hope that further negotiations might lead

B